JFK Assassination Forum
Off Topic => News - Off Topic - Weird & Wacky => Topic started by: Thomas Graves on May 09, 2019, 05:58:12 AM
-
https://slate-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/11/the-mueller-probe-and-a-lesson-in-russian-strategic-deception.amp?amp_js_v=a2&_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCCAE%3D#aoh=15573771079402&_ct=1557377127937&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf=From%20%251%24s&share=https%3A%2F%2Fslate.com%2Fnews-and-politics%2F2017%2F11%2Fthe-mueller-probe-and-a-lesson-in-russian-strategic-deception.html
-
Here it is, John:
https://archive.org/details/SpyWarsMolesMysteriesAndDeadlyGames/page/n3
-- MWT ;)
-
For those of you who "can't handle it," try reading Bagley's 35-page PDF follow-up from 2014:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08850607.2014.962362
-- MWT ;)
-
Tom,
I didn't bother reading the long (winded) one because it sounds more like a spy novel. I skimmed through the second one and there's nothing in there about the murder. What gives here?
You may want to go here instead:
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret_Preface.html
This is a deep dive into the case, Tom. We're talking about the actual people who touched, smelled, and eyed Oswald, not some Russian counter guy who never even knew him. I'm getting my metaphors mixed up here, but how does it go - the closer you are to the fire, the hotter it gets?
Here's another good series:
https://www.opednews.com/articles/THE-JFK-CASE--THE-TWELVE-by-Bill-Simpich-CIA_Intelligence_JFK-Assassination_Kennedy-Assassination-141221-951.html&series=45
I know what you're going to say - "...but....but...but...Simpich agreed with me...!!!" Big deal. How do you know he was perhaps just stringing you along? People do do that you know. Like at a dinner party you meet someone famous. They speak to you and say, "Yeah...I know exactly what you mean!" Suddenly, you think this person *agrees* with you when they're just stringing you along. And you never hear from them again.
The Simpich story has just too much plausibilty to be dismissed out of hand. The reason is simple - these were all real people, living and breathing together up to 11/22. It can't just be ignored with the wave of a hand just because one of your heroes, Angleton, in (unwittingly) involved in it. But don't worry about your hero, Tom. Simpich goes light on him:
I offer the hypothesis that David Morales ran a piggy-backed operation on top of an anti-Fair Play for Cuba Committee operation run by CIA officer John Tilton and FBI agent Lambert Anderson, outwitted both Angleton and Goodpasture, brought down the President, and got away with it. Whether or not Bill Harvey was part of this operation, his people were all over it and merit further scrutiny.
It's time to put the Ruskies Did It to bed, Tom. It's a ridiculous premise. It's time, too, for you take an honest look at this case instead of falling back on the usual just because folks you admitted you despise also support this narrative.
John Boy
-
Tom,
I didn't bother reading the long (winded) one because it sounds more like a spy novel. I skimmed through the second one and there's nothing in there about the murder. What gives here?
You may want to go here instead:
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret_Preface.html
This is a deep dive into the case, Tom. We're talking about the actual people who touched, smelled, and eyed Oswald, not some Russian counter guy who never even knew him. I'm getting my metaphors mixed up here, but how does it go - the closer you are to the fire, the hotter it gets?
Here's another good series:
https://www.opednews.com/articles/THE-JFK-CASE--THE-TWELVE-by-Bill-Simpich-CIA_Intelligence_JFK-Assassination_Kennedy-Assassination-141221-951.html&series=45
I know what you're going to say - "...but....but...but...Simpich agreed with me...!!!" Big deal. How do you know he was perhaps just stringing you along? People do do that you know. Like at a dinner party you meet someone famous. They speak to you and say, "Yeah...I know exactly what you mean!" Suddenly, you think this person *agrees* with you when they're just stringing you along. And you never hear from them again.
The Simpich story has just too much plausibilty to be dismissed out of hand. The reason is simple - these were all real people, living and breathing together up to 11/22. It can't just be ignored with the wave of a hand just because one of your heroes, Angleton, in (unwittingly) involved in it. But don't worry about your hero, Tom. Simpich goes light on him:
I offer the hypothesis that David Morales ran a piggy-backed operation on top of an anti-Fair Play for Cuba Committee operation run by CIA officer John Tilton and FBI agent Lambert Anderson, outwitted both Angleton and Goodpasture, brought down the President, and got away with it. Whether or not Bill Harvey was part of this operation, his people were all over it and merit further scrutiny.
It's time to put the Ruskies Did It to bed, Tom. It's a ridiculous premise. It's time, too, for you take an honest look at this case instead of falling back on the usual just because folks you admitted you despise also support this narrative.
John Boy
Did I say that Tennent H. Bagley writes about the details of the JFK assassination in his book or in his PDF?
Answer: No, I didn't.
Did I suggest that you need to read his works in order to learn about that wonderful humanitarian organization formerly known as the Cheka, NKGB, OGPU, NKVD, MGB. KGB, etc, and how it's been running circles around our intelligence services since the 1920s, and especially since 1959?
Answer: Yes, I did.
Did I suggest that you read Chapter 10 of Mark Riebling's 1994 book Wedge: The Secret War Between the FBI and CIA? (In which he ... gasp ... talks about the assassination for a page or two!) https://archive.org/details/WedgeFromPearlHarborTo911HowTheSecretWarBetweenTheFBIAndCIAHasEndangeredNationalSecurity/page/n371
Answer: Yes I did.
Did I say that I won't "debate" with you until you've read at least Bagley's PDF (in full; no skimming) and Chapter 10 of Riebling's book?
Answer: Yes, I did.
What's with the snotty attitude, btw?
-- MWT ;)
-
Consecutive Facebook "Messages" from September 14, 2018:
9/14/18, 6:35 PM
Hi Bill (Simpich).
I'm dropping this note to you to let you know that I've recently realized that the triple-agent "Byetkov*?" JJA referred to in his June 19, 1975, Church Committee testimony must have Ivan Obyedkov (pronounced ah-bee-ED-cough), the Soviet embassy security guard who volunteered Kostikov's name to "Oswald" on 10/02/63. It's easy for me to see how the stenographer could misspell Obyedkov's name like that.
Also, it's interesting that Oybedkov's 201 file has so many redactions in it.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=157254&search=201-779495#relPageId=1&tab=page
.......
Thanks, Tom.
That is a great find. I spent a lot of time puzzling over that one.
I tried to solve it the wrong way, assuming it started with a B. I do believe you have solved it.
.......
Thanks for the moral support, Bill. I puzzled over it for a long time, too. I know you write about Byetkov in Chapter 5 of "State Secret".
Regarding the photo of Leonov allegedly found in Oswald's pocket when he was "arrested in Mexico," it's obvious to me that Senator Schwartz should have said that Leonov's "calling card" was found in Fidel Castro's pocket / wallet when he (Castro) was arrested in Mexico in 1956. When JJA says, "That's an allegation" (that a photo of Leonov was found in LHO's pocket), I think Angleton is really saying, "Oh yeah? I haven't heard of that one."
.......
9/14/18, 8:42 PM
Hopefully you or Carmine will be able to figure out what Obyedkov's "crypto" was ...
(The End)
-
Good article. Thank you for posting.
-
Good article. Thank you for posting.
Thanks, Richard.
-- MWT ;)
-
Interesting
I don’t think Helms was very impressed. And Olson felt the need to spike Bagely’s career, with this:
https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32359254.pdf
TOP SECRET
13 October 1970
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
Subject: BAGELY, Tennant, Harrington
#386 38
1) On Wednesday, 7 October 1970 I briefed Colonel L. K. White, Executive Director-Controller on certain reservations I have concerning the proposed promotion of subject to a supergrade position.
2) I was very careful to explain to Colonel White at the outset that my reservations had nothing whatsoever to do with Bagely's security status. I explained that it was my conviction that Bagely was almost exclusively responsible for the manner in which the Nosenko case had been handled by our SR division. I said I considered that Bagely lacked objectivity and that he had displayed extremely poor judgment over a two year period in the handling of this case. Specifically as one example of Bagely's extreme prejudice I pointed out that the SR division had neglected to follow up several leads provided by Nosenko which subsequently had been followed up by this office (Bruce Solie) and that this lead us to individuals who have confessed their recruitment and use by the Soviets over an extensive period of time.
3) I explained further that Bagely displayed extremely poor judgment in the actions he took during that time that Nosenko was incarcerated at ISOLATION. On many occasions, as the individual responsible for Nosenko's care, I refuse to condone Bagely's instructions to my people who are guarding him. In one instance Bagely insisted that Nosenko's food ration be reduced to black bread and water three times daily. After I had briefed Colonel White, he indicated that he would refresh the Director's memory on Bagely's role in the Nosenko case at the time he reviews supergrade promotions.
Howard J. Osborn
Director of Security
-
Interesting
Michael,
How so?
-- MWT ;)